The Pros and Cons of Human Gene Patents: An Ethical Point of View

The Pros and Cons of Human Gene Patents: An Ethical Point of View

            A gene is a discrete segment of DNA molecules that contain the information required for the production of specific compulsory proteins. Patents, on the other hand, are exclusive rights granted by states to specific individuals through legal systems that are set in place to prevent others from exploiting the holders, or inventor’s information, or product. For the granting of a patent, the invention must be non-obvious, useful, and eligible for the criteria required to patent a product. Human gene patents have been a controversial topic for a while, with multiple discussions revolving around the fact whether it is morally right to license them. Various people offer supporting arguments to the patenting of DNA, and others sweat their brows off to preach against the practice. In my discussion, I will focus on the pros and cons of patenting human genes from an ethical point of view.

Often, patents offer intellectual property rights to a creator. With such, the patent holder can explore more on their invention and exploit all fundamental ways of improving their product. Anyone who requires to use the product before its official release intends to use the patented information or wants to study more on the invented product is needed to gain the permission of the patent holder. Man is continually trying to find new ways to make life better; thus, scientists have been studying human genes for years. Reports claim that close to 20% of the human gene is patented(Bernecker, 2020). Diseases that plague us, the desire to live longer and aspirations to make clones or creatures who resemble us and act like us are some of the aspects which have pushed man out of his comfort zone to explore the human gene and get around such. Over some time, breakthroughs have resulted from several successful and renowned scientists, for instance, in the case of Dolly, a sheep who was the first animal artificially produced from an adult cell. She lived from July 1996 to February 2003. Scientists at the Roslin Institute at Midlothian, Scotland, were responsible for the huge success.

Dolly is just one of many inventions that have resulted from the exploration of human genes. A colossal battle revolving her patenting brewed, and the court ruled that she was not eligible. The case led to huge discussions revolving the patenting of DNA. Several people may feel uncomfortable that genes are used for commercial gain. Dolly was a sheep, and entities might contend that patenting her DNA would have been less of an issue since she was an animal. However, human DNA is considered to be special and unique, and some people say that such is adequate to treat it differently from others. Some folks could also claim that human genes are a matter of public property and should not be in private hands. Genes are perhaps comparable to chattels like waterways, public walkways and streets, rivers, lakes and such. These are items that are required to remain in public control, where no one should privatize their use to enable access to all. This classification does not mean that these places cannot be advanced for profitable use; it just entails that the development should not hinder anyone from their usage. Thus, as scientists get into human gene exploration, they should leave their discoveries open for use and examination by other scientists to allow for further advancement. Patenting is seen to create a barrier to such bettering of DNA.

Further discussion revolving around the issue of DNA patents remaining in private hands arouses the topic of slavery. This topic is a hotbed of controversy in the modern world, resulting from hundreds of years of bondage of various races to their perceived masters. In the 21^st century, people consider themselves free of slavery; thus, the idea of property from a human body belonging to a particular individual is bound to tread on shaky ground. The right to ownership is only allowed on objects and not humans and genes, as a human component, are no object. Owning them may equally be matched to slavery by some. The European directive, 98/44/EC, on biotechnological inventions stipulates that everyone has a right to their genes. Thus, a consortium of individuals may view the patenting of DNA as a violation of this right. Discovery of an element relating to the human body should not be subject to any form of patent, as it enhances a form of slavery. Scientists should, therefore, make a point of ensuring consent from bio donors or their immediate family in the case of such dispute.

The vast discussion revolving the patenting of human genes bases itself on several key arguments. One of the elements is that the product to be patented is not the gene itself, but the breakthrough concerned with the gene. If for instance, in the case of Dolly the sheep, the involved scientists patented the original DNA from the donor sheep, it would have opened a Pandora’s box on the eligibility of the patent. What they sought to patent was Dolly, the product of their constant exploration of the original gene. A gene exploration breakthrough classifies into two definitions, a discovery, or an invention. A discovery is the acquisition of knowledge of an already existing product in the world, while an invention is the creation or development of something new. The difference between the two is that a discovery deals with something already in place, while the latter brings in something which wasn’t in existence at all. Thus, in application to gene patents, a naturally occurring DNA may be a discovery and may not be eligible for patenting. Complementary DNA however, is suitable for such since it results from the lab. The latter is a creation, an invention of something new. People love to be appreciated for the work they do since it gives them the motivation to push further. When a scientist brings about complementary DNA to the world and their work is patented, they are motivated to keep contributing to the world.

A major issue surrounding the patenting of genes is whether it is in the right interest to only have one diagnostic test for a medical quagmire. If, for instance, a scientist patents a solution to an illness resulting from their work on DNA, should their solution only be what is readily accepted by, and available to, the medical community? Getting approval to look further into a patented product may turn out rigid. It is not right that the scientist perceives their discovery to only be what is accurate, they should pave the way for others to look further into their invention and examine for any adverse effects that may be accompanied by such. The actions by fellow scientists on their invention may lead to a chain of discoveries on opportunities that the patent holder may have missed out on while focused on creating their origination; thus, patenting the gene may turn out a disadvantage.

This discussion brings out two sides of the human gene patent debate. Some argue that it is morally wrong to patent what belongs to another’s body, while some support it as it stimulates further inventions and motivates scientists to look further into human DNA continually. When such motivation is present, breakthroughs are achieved such as new drugs and solutions to existing illnesses in society. Patenting of human genes is a controversial topic, and each side of the debate brings about several valid arguments. It is therefore essential that scientists get consent from gene donors to present a balance between both parties. Subsequently, gene patenting remains a sensitive issue that needs handling with care. An apparent discrepancy should thus, be placed on arguments presented based on morality and the respect of intellectual property.

References

Bernecker, S. (2020). Ethics of Patenting DNA. Irvine, California: University of Irvine.